Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Finishing and polishing effects of multiblade burs on the surface texture of 5 resin composites: microhardness and roughness testing

  • Ehrmann, Elodie (Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis) ;
  • Medioni, Etienne (Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis) ;
  • Brulat-Bouchard, Nathalie (Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis)
  • Received : 2018.07.30
  • Accepted : 2018.10.14
  • Published : 2019.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study was to test the effect of 2 finishing-polishing sequences (QB, combining a 12/15-fluted finishing bur and an EVO-Light polisher; QWB, adding a 30-fluted polishing bur after the 12/15-fluted finishing bur used in the QB sequence) on 5 nanotech-based resin composites (Filtek Z500, Ceram X Mono, Ceram X Duo, Tetric Evoceram, and Tetric Evoceram Bulk Fill) by comparing their final surface roughness and hardness values to those of a Mylar strip control group (MS). Materials and Methods: Twelve specimens of each nanocomposite were prepared in Teflon moulds. The surface of each resin composite was finished with QB (5 samples), QWB (5 samples), or MS (2 samples), and then evaluated (60 samples). Roughness was analysed with an optical profilometer, microhardness was tested with a Vickers indenter, and the surfaces were examined by optical and scanning electron microscopy. Data were analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.05) followed by the Dunn test. Results: For the hardness and roughness of nanocomposite resin, the QWB sequence was significantly more effective than QB (p < 0.05). The Filtek Z500 showed significantly harder surfaces regardless of the finishing-polishing sequence (p < 0.05). Conclusions: QWB yielded the best values of surface roughness and hardness. The hardness and roughness of the 5 nanocomposites presented less significant differences when QWB was used.

Keywords

References

  1. Erdemir U, Sancakli HS, Yildiz E. The effect of one-step and multi-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of novel resin composites. Eur J Dent 2012;6:198-205. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1698951
  2. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3
  3. Endo T, Finger WJ, Kanehira M, Utterodt A, Komatsu M. Surface texture and roughness of polished nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites. Dent Mater J 2010;29:213-223. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2009-019
  4. Leize-Zal E. Polissage et finition. Techniques pour tous les materiaux d'obturation et de prothese. Encyclopedie medico-chirurgicale. Odontologie [23-360-J-1]. Paris: Elsevier SAS; 2002.
  5. Weitman RT, Eames WB. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. Oral Health 1975;65:29-33.
  6. Yap AU, Tan CH, Chung SM. Wear behavior of new composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2004;29:269-274.
  7. O'Brien WJ. Abrasion, polishing and bleaching. In: O'Brien WJ, ed. Dental materials and their selection. Chicago (IL): Quintessence Publishing; 1997. p160-168.
  8. Aytac F, Karaarslan ES, Agaccioglu M, Tastan E, Buldur M, Kuyucu E. Effects of novel finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness and morphology of nanocomposites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2016;28:247-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12215
  9. Yap AU, Wu SS, Chelvan S, Tan ES. Effect of hygiene maintenance procedures on surface roughness of composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2005;30:99-104.
  10. Ergucu Z, Turkun LS. Surface roughness of novel resin composites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent 2007;32:185-192. https://doi.org/10.2341/06-56
  11. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004;196:42-45. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4810881
  12. Jefferies SR, Barkmeier WW, Gwinnett AJ. Three composite finishing systems: a multisite in vitro evaluation. J Esthet Dent 1992;4:181-185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1992.tb00693.x
  13. Daud A, Gray G, Lynch CD, Wilson NH, Blum IR. A randomised controlled study on the use of finishing and polishing systems on different resin composites using 3D contact optical profilometry and scanning electron microscopy. J Dent 2018;71:25-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.01.008
  14. Aydin B, Yazici AR, Karahan S, Antonson SA. Different finishing/polishing systems effects on surface roughness/hardness of restorative resins. Alexandria (VA): International Association for Dental Research; 2014.
  15. Erdemir U, Sancakli HS, Yildiz E. The effect of one-step and multi-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of novel resin composites. Eur J Dent 2012;6:198-205. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1698951
  16. Chinelatti MA, Chimello DT, Ramos RP, Palma-Dibb RG. Evaluation of the surface hardness of composite resins before and after polishing at different times. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14:188-192. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572006000300008
  17. Joniot SB, Gregoire GL, Auther AM, Roques YM. Three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis of surface states obtained after finishing sequences for three composite resins. Oper Dent 2000;25:311-315.
  18. Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Serra MC. Abrasive wear of resin composites as related to finishing and polishing procedures. Dent Mater 2005;21:641-648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.011
  19. van Noort R, Davis LG. The surface finish of composite resin restorative materials. Br Dent J 1984;157:360-364. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4805494
  20. van Dijken JW, Ruyter IE. Surface characteristics of posterior composites after polishing and toothbrushing. Acta Odontol Scand 1987;45:337-346. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016358709096356
  21. Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19:265-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00116.x
  22. Barbosa SH, Zanata RL, Navarro MF, Nunes OB. Effect of different finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of microfilled, hybrid and packable composite resins. Braz Dent J 2005;16:39-44. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402005000100007
  23. Uctasli MB, Arisu HD, Omurlu H, Eliguzeloglu E, Ozcan S, Ergun G. The effect of different finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of different composite restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:89-96.
  24. Curtis AR, Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Shortall AC, Marquis PM. The mechanical properties of nanofilled resin-based composites: the impact of dry and wet cyclic pre-loading on bi-axial flexure strength. Dent Mater 2009;25:188-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.06.003
  25. Ferracane JL. Resin composite--state of the art. Dent Mater 2011;27:29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.020
  26. Berthault GN, Durand AL, Lasfargues JJ, Decup F. Les nouveaux composites: evaluation et interets cliniques pour les restaurations en technique directe. Rev Odontostomatol 2008;37:177-197.
  27. Antonson SA, Yazici AR, Kilinc E, Antonson DE, Hardigan PC. Comparison of different finishing/polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites. J Dent 2011;39 (Supplement 1):e9-e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.01.006

Cited by

  1. Surface Geometry of Four Conventional Nanohybrid Resin-Based Composites and Four Regular Viscosity Bulk Fill Resin-Based Composites after Two-Step Polishing Procedure vol.2020, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6203053
  2. The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Sequences on The Surface Roughness of Three Different Nanocomposites and Composite/Enamel and Composite/Cementum Interfaces vol.10, pp.7, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10071339
  3. A three-year randomized clinical trial evaluating direct posterior composite restorations placed with three self-etch adhesives vol.8, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2021.1939034
  4. Press-On Force Effect on the Efficiency of Composite Restorations Final Polishing-Preliminary In Vitro Study vol.11, pp.6, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11060705
  5. Neurotic personality trait as a predictor in the prognosis of composite restorations: A 24-month clinical follow up study vol.11, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96229-3